West Buys Influence In Afghanistan

[T]he $16 billion will be able to assist the Afghan people in paying all of the Western reconstruction contractors and the special status will only serve to give the U.S. a legal framework for its long-term geo-strategic plans in the region.

[W]ho in fact are the worst savages? Those who kill hundreds because of their primitive, brutal and backward beliefs, or those who kill thousands and have press teams, slick-looking uniforms and smooth-talking spokespeople and kill for the primitive motive of revenge for an attack they may have planned themselves?

====

It was supposed to be big saving face I suppose, but sadly, as if to underline the failure of the Western adventure in Afghanistan, a conference by donor countries was recently held not in some free and peaceful city of Afghanistan, liberated by the peace-bringing/humanitarian-intervening NATO, but at a safe distance, in Tokyo, Japan.

President Hamid Karzai looked worried and none too pleased. Perhaps he knows that when NATO leaves his chances of staying power decrease exponentially. Perhaps he is tired of having to pose for photo ops with the same occupiers who have countless times ignored his calls for an end to civilian casualties and who have apologized countless times for the same casualties and the countless horrific acts against his people; acts of mass murder, urinating on corpses, collecting body parts as trophies, torture and a sickening list too long to go into right now.

It’s an election year in the U.S. and soon NATO will be abandoning Karzai and the country it has devastated for over a decade, so a saving face plan had to be carried out. On the surface it looks as if the kind and benevolent West is out to help Afghanistan, granting it a special non-NATO ally/special ally status and $16 billion in economic aid. I guess this is supposed to please the Afghan people. Of course the $16 billion will be able to assist the Afghan people in paying all of the Western reconstruction contractors and the special status will only serve to give the U.S. a legal framework for its long-term geo-strategic plans in the region. A fact underlined by a statement made by Clinton at the donor summit: “We had no intention to leave Afghanistan. On the contrary, we are building partnerships with Afghanistan, which will continue far into the future.”

Far into the future? Is the same in store for Pakistan which also recently received the “special ally” status from the U.S.?

As for the money, it is supposed to in some way guarantee that the country does not spiral into complete anarchy once the NATO forces leave; that is its public reason. The real reason for the money may be the buying of continued influence in the country: one reason why the West was so opposed to Iran’s offer to build infrastructure and roads in Afghanistan.

Meanwhile the Taliban have continued to show the world that the U.S. has gotten nowhere in Afghanistan. Shortly after the donor meeting in Tokyo the Taliban launched a huge, albeit not entirely effective, attack on multiple targets in the country; a massive attack according to reports, resulting in 23 dead, 17 of them being Taliban. They were launched in response to the donor meeting which the Taliban saw as an agreement to continue the foreign occupation of their country.

Perhaps they are right, but who is really the worst in this conflict? The NATO/US forces have killed up to tens of thousands either directly or indirectly in their “righteous” war. But sadly the Taliban have proven time and time again that they can be just as savage if not more so than the occupiers of their country.

Sadly for Afghanistan the future looks bleak. Another recent event in a village called Qol-i-Heer in central Afghanistan, namely the cold-blooded execution of a poor Afghan girl named Najiba who was in her early 20s by the brutal and primitive Taliban for alleged “illegal sex” after she was passed around between two top Taliban leaders, underlines the West failure in Afghanistan.

Sure the Taliban are brutal, backwards and primitive savages making a mockery of their very name “Taliban”, which means roughly Students of the Holy Koran, but, who in fact are the worst savages? Those who kill hundreds because of their primitive, brutal and backward beliefs, or those who kill thousands and have press teams, slick-looking uniforms and smooth-talking spokespeople and kill for the primitive motive of revenge for an attack they may have planned themselves?

Sadly for the Afghan people. The answer to this question is not one that can be easily answered.

You’re right, it hardly constitutes a nation-wide offensive, but is surely indicative of a lack of stability when even something of this scale can occur on a fairly routine basis.
However, it has never been my contention that the U.S. and NATO intended to “win” in Afghanistan, whatever that word connotes in the given context.
It’s enough that NATO has ensconced itself in South and Central Asia.